This quote by the Dalai Lama is going viral on the internet, “If every 8 year old in the world is taught meditation, we will eliminate violence from the world within one generation.” Marianne Williamson shared this quote via her Facebook account and it received a tremendous reception. Google the quote and you will find tens of thousands of web sites, Facebook pages and twitter feeds where it has appeared. Needless to say, the enthusiasm over the Dalai Lama’s statement is profound. It has struck a cord for sure.

His words reflect the more widespread belief that spiritual practices can provide grounding for more ethical and wise action. One could substitute meditation in the quote with yoga, prayer, chanting or sacred dancing and people would generally agree that these types of things will inspire compassion, kindness and generosity. Through meditation one can hopefully gain a better realization of the interconnectedness of all things. Many believe, or at least hope, like the Dalai Lama, that this renewed sense of awareness will inspire us to take action against injustice in the world.

While for much of my life I’ve also shared this popular sentiment I’ve now come to see it much differently. Based on years of research and writing as well as personal practice of yoga, meditation and Chi Kung I’ve discovered some very strong flaws in the Dalai Lama’s argument. Furthermore, I actually see these types of statements are very irresponsible as they mislead the public about the causes and solutions to violence. The real conversations about these very challenging issues that need to take place could potentially be minimized by these types of statements.

The first and most obvious problem with his statement is the ambiguity of what violence actually constitutes. Takes these few examples: spray painting over a sexist billboard, using violence to defend against rape, eating meat, the prison industrial complex, throwing tear gas canisters back towards the police who fired them, the capitalist system, racial microagressions, stealing food to support oneself…etc. Many would argue that abortion is violent. Would this be eliminated with meditation? There are so many forms of violence and ways that we all participate in systems that are violent that it would be nearly impossible to reach a consensus on who’s criteria of violence gets to be used. How can one eliminate something if we can’t agree on what it is that is being eliminated?

Buddhism and War

The second flaw with the Dalai Lama’s statement is that history has revealed numerous examples of societies based on spiritual, ethical and meditation practices which have colluded with and supported some of the worst violence of the day. I describe this in my chapter in 21st Century Yoga: Culture, Politics & Practice (Kleio Press, 2012.) [Below, marked by asteriks, is an excerpt from this chapter.]

***

Author and Zen priest Brian Victoria has written extensively on the role that Buddhism played in supporting the Japanese Imperial Empire before and during World War II. In Zen at War and Zen War Stories, he chronicles the little known and disturbing history of renowned university professors, Zen masters, and lay monks of many different sects who gladly assisted their nation in waging multiple “wars of compassion.” The Japanese Emperor was compared to the Buddha, and Buddhist teachings became an excellent tool to eradicate individualism and dissolve the “small-self” into the larger nation-state. Hitler was jealous: “Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good?”

One of the many people Victoria profiles is Zen master Yasutani Haku’un. Yasutani was the teacher of prominent American Buddhist Phillip Kapleau, author of the now classic Three Pillars of Zen. While he received high praise from the likes of Huston Smith and delivered talks in the U.S., there is another side of him that went untold until relatively recently.

Although Yasutani’s influence on American Buddhism is widely revered, Victoria refers to him as a “militarist, not to mention ethnic chauvinist, sexist, and anti-Semite.” On the question of Buddhism and killing, Yasutani was unequivocal:

Those who understand the spirit of the Mahayana precepts should be able to answer this question immediately. That is to say, of course one should kill, killing as many as possible. One should, fighting hard, kill everyone in the enemy army. The reason for this is that in order to carry [Buddhist] compassion and filial obedience through to perfection it is necessary to assist good and punish evil . . . This is the special characteristic of the Mahayana precepts.

At the time, Japan was engaged in a cruel war of imperial expansion. This received full support from Yasutani, who stated: “In making China cede the island of Taiwan, and, further, in annexing the Korean peninsula, our Great Japanese Imperial Empire engaged in the practice of a great bodhisattva, a practice that reveals itself through compassion and filial obedience.” Yasutani also warned of the demonic ways of the Jews, dismantled liberal reforms, and reiterated sexist statements. He insisted that “the universities we presently have must be smashed one and all,” and referred to trades unions and alternative political parties as “traitors to the nation.”

Sadly, Yasutani was not a marginal voice. Rather, he was emblematic of how institutional Buddhist wholeheartedly embraced the worst aspects of Japanese imperialism.

Sawaki Kodo, “one of Japan’s best known modern Soto Zen masters and scholars,” was a similarly staunch supporter of the unity of Zen and war. “My comrades and I gorged ourselves on killing people,” he testified. “Especially at the battle of Baolisi temple, I chased our enemies into a hole where I was able to pick them off very efficiently. Because of this, my company commander requested that I be given a letter of commendation.” Another Zen Master, Yamada Reirin, explained how Buddhism shaped his love for the state:

Wherever the imperial military advances there is only charity and love. They could never act in the barbarous and cruel way in which the Chinese soldiers act. This can truly be considered to be a great accomplishment of the long period which Buddhism took in nurturing [the Japanese military]. In other words, brutality itself no longer exists in the officers and men of the imperial military who have been schooled in the spirit of Buddhism.

Buddhist monks and leaders taught Zazen (sitting meditation) to “discover, through a thorough-going examination of the self, the origin of the power which enabled them, in their various work capacities, to serve the emperor.” This, they believed, would allow them to “realize infinite power.” When the tide turned against the Japanese, Zen priests abandoned this “thought war” and took positions in factories producing military goods.

Books were also written to defend the Japanese empire. In The Buddhist View of War (1937), Komazawa University Professor Hayashiya Tomojiro argued that the Japanese aggression should be seen as “wars of compassion.” Stating his strong support for the war effort, Tomojiro insisted that Japanese Buddhists would “as part of our self-sacrificial public duty . . . work for the spiritual general mobilization of the people.” The aim of the war, he claimed, was to “save sentient beings and guide them properly.”

While these examples are disturbing in their own right, this pairing of Buddhism and war isn’t confined to the Japanese Empire. The edited volume Buddhist Warfare (2010), clearly illustrates how Buddhism has been used to justify violence throughout its history. In a review of the book, Vladimir Tikhonov notes that: “From its inception, Buddhism was integrated into a complicated web of power relations; it always attempted to accommodate itself with the pre-existent power hierarchies while preserving a degree of internal autonomy; and it inevitably came to acknowledge, willingly or otherwise, that the powers-that-be use violence to achieve their objectives, which often overlap with those of the Buddhist monastic community.”

Yoga in the U.S. Military

The appropriation of yoga by the American military similarly challenges notions that internal spiritual practices will inspire practitioners to challenge the status quo. In 2006, Fit Yoga Magazine’s front cover featured a picture of two naval aviators practicing yoga – specifically, Virabadrasana II, or “Warrior” pose – on a battleship. At the time, even the editor of magazine admitted that she found this juxtaposition of yoga and militarism a “little shocking.” On second glance, however, she realized that “on their faces, their serene smiles relayed a sense of inner calm.”

According to Retired Admiral Tom Steffens, the Navy Seals use yoga too. “The ability to stay focused on something, whether on breathing or on the yoga practice, and not be drawn off course, that has a lot of connection to the military,” he explains. “In our SEAL basic training, there are many things that are yoga-like in nature.” In 2011, the Army added yoga and “resting” to the required physical training regiment in an effort to “better prepare soldiers for the rigors of combat.”

Confusing Presence with Justice

Why, one wonders is dissatisfaction with social injustice and a willingness to resist exploitation not seen as a sign of ‘spiritual intelligence’? – Richard King

As we’ve seen, cultivating presence through meditation or yoga is not by itself an adequate way to address the complex global challenges we face. The “raising of consciousness,” as it’s popularly phrased in today’s yoga and meditation communities, doesn’t raise political consciousness. It doesn’t make people more aware of what is violent and what is not, nor does it make them resist violence. An increase in presence in the world does not increase justice. Nonetheless, these two elements are all-too-often conflated with each other. But inner transformation doesn’t necessarily lead to social transformation, despite the popular conceptions to the contrary. In many cases the cultivation of presence and awareness is actually used to support violence.

In fact, as Marshal Rosenberg warns, a mere focus on spiritual practice can actually be problematic:

“Unless we as social change agents come from a certain spirituality, we’re likely to create more harm than good…The spirituality that we need to develop for social change is one that mobilizes us for social change. It doesn’t just enable us to sit there and enjoy the world no matter what. It creates a quality of action that mobilizes us into action. Unless our spiritual development has this kind of quality, I don’t think we can create the kind of social change I would like to see.”

The activist, writer, and spiritual teacher Starhawk similarly recognizes the limitations of a privatized spirituality. She states, “Transforming the inner landscape is only a first step. Unless we change the structures of the culture, we will mirror them again and again: we will be caught in a constant battle to avoid being molded again and again into an image of domination.”

We’re all part of larger systems, many of which are incredibly damaging to people and the planet. Along with air force bomber pilots, racists, pro-life extremists, corporate crooks, Japanese soldiers in WWII and (you fill in the blank), we can all experience what we sincerely believe to be spiritual transformation or awakening, yet remain oblivious to the dangers of our surrounding culture. In fact, “spirituality” is rather easily incorporated into any social system, including market capitalism, government, and militarism, as a regime of thought control.

Why Meditation & Awakening are Ethically Neutral

Spiritual seekers, including yoga practitioners and convert Buddhists, understand the divine, or true essence of reality in a variety of ways. Many believe that God, the supreme consciousness, or emptiness is supportive, benevolent, or on the side of justice. Of course, it’s understandable for someone to think that the universe supports his or her particular beliefs and values. The problem, however, is that many with quite different beliefs and values think exactly the same thing. As we’ve seen, countless people have been deeply entrenched in larger systems of violence and domination despite believing they were experiencing connection with the divine through meditation, yoga, or some other spiritual practice. Of course, others have used their spiritual practices and beliefs to resist these same power structures. Therefore, if we assume that there is in fact a divine foundation of reality, it’s extremely difficult to see how it wouldn’t be morally and politically neutral. If there were a distinct political or moral direction to the divine, and practices such as yoga or meditation were means of tapping into it, then all practitioners would eventually share the same political ideology. This, however, is obviously not the case.

***

How would meditation or the experience of awakening change the politics of these various groups? The Black Panther Party, radical feminists, the tea party, the KKK, Goldman Sachs bankers or anti-abortion activists. Would it somehow make them all the same? Would meditation lead to some shared understanding of what violence is between these groups and would it be followed by the elimination of it? Or simply imagine the eight year old children of these groups meditating. Will they all end up with the same politics? Will they all eliminate violence from their lives? The answer is a resounding no. Think about all of the white, middle and upper class people who have been practicing yoga, meditating, doing visualizations and chanting in the West for decades now. Has it made them more aware of injustice? More concerned about white privilege or informed about racism? Better educated about poverty? More aware of animal cruelty in the food system? Have the millions of spiritual practitioners subverted anything political? No.

In the book I describe how these experiences should be understood:

Perhaps it’s best to view the potential political subversion of spiritual practices like yoga and meditation as akin to those of psychotherapy. Much healing and transformation can be gained with therapy, just as emotional blockages and wounds can be uncovered and processed on the yoga mat. Experiencing more inner freedom and a vibrant emotional life while being less distracted by habitual patterns or old wounds are outcomes of both. However, it’s important to remember that merely growing developmentally, or awakening to deeper states of being won’t change one’s social or political ideology as the Dalai seems to suggest. Yoga and meditation, like psychotherapy, may be effective healing and personal growth practices, but they’re politically and ethically neutral.

In conclusion this quote by Gaylon Ferguson who is writing about racism and Buddhism demonstrates very well the problem with relying upon meditation to cure societal ills: “It seems quite clear that, whatever the brilliance of the teachings of the Buddhadharma, individual practitioners can continue for years, perhaps lifetimes, with these prejudices left largely untouched by meditation practice. One may even learn to use dharmic concepts like ‘karma’ to reinforce separatism and indifference to the suffering around us.”

22 Responses to “Why the Dalai Lama is Wrong to Think Meditation Will Eliminate Violence”

On top of everything else, this quote is nonsensical from even the understanding of emptiness supposedly held by the Dalai Lama’s own school of Tibetan Buddhism!

This quote implies a belief in some inherent essence/nature of meditation, ignoring all the myriad conditions that would be necessary for meditation to most probably lead to non-violence! As Be makes abundantly clear (and it is a similar argument that I find myself having to make), any of the practices of yoga/dharma, being empty of any self-nature, can be used to promote more skillful peace-making OR more ‘skillful’ war-making!

All of this begins not with the Buddha, but with Buddhists. Just as the Crusades were fought by misguided Christians who misunderstood and perverted the teachings of Jesus, so the actual human experience of the Buddha has been interpreted, misinterpreted, subverted and lost by his so-called followers who would transform his message into just another set of empty religious rituals. Forget about Pali and Sanskrit, these are as relevant as the shoes the Buddha wore 2,500 years ago while he was teaching! Alleged “bodhisattvas” have polished the gem until they hold only a lump of coal! The Dalai Lama’s statement about meditation is well-meaning but misguided – meditation has no goals. All the talk of chanting and prayer – how does this dovetail with the Buddha’s moment of ultimate “satori” wherein he exclaimed, “Beautiful! The World is perfect just as it is!”? In a universe where suffering leads to spiritual evolution, eventual non-attachment, extinction of ego-based experience and oneness with the original Mother consciousness, where does the hubris of ego-based human preference fit in? Things are as they are, and will be as they will be. Meditation “plugs us in” to the interconnectedness of all things – what we do with that connection is ethically and morally neutral, as it should be, as the universe is. Expecting the universe to wear a human face is just more religious nonsense. When the forest burns, to call the fire evil, to personalize the suffering and pain that it inflicts on the creatures dwelling within it, is arrogant and blinded by ego. Seek the Buddha’s experience within, not in the shadows of his one-eyed followers.

One of the most meditative works of spiritual literature, the Bhagavad Gita, is dramatically set in the midst of a bloody battle. That’s no accident. (I am aware, of course, that the Gita is part of Hindu literature and not strictly speaking a Buddhist text, but it does strongly suggest the compatibility of meditation and violence.) We could probably find examples in Western traditions too. Excellent essay, Be, and an important contribution to thoughtful spirituality.

As I see it, both the Dalai Lama’s quotation and the essay above are overly simplistic. Obviously, meditation is not a panacea as the DL seems to suggest, and the idea that we could eliminate violence in a single generation – by any means – is wishful thinking at best. But would teaching meditation to eight-year-olds be a good thing? Absolutely, as its beneficial effects on mental and physical wellbeing are well documented. The big catch is that there are many different types of meditation, just as there are many different types of yoga, and more importantly there are levels of depth within each tradition. To use Vipassana – aka Insight or Mindfulness meditation – as an example (since it’s rather popular, and happens to be the practice with which I’m most familiar), it can be used simply to relax, or to completely break down one’s identity, and the difference between these two divergent outcomes lies with the intention of the practitioner combined with diligence and time. Most of what passes for meditation these days is concerned almost solely with relaxation and perhaps a bit of mental focus rather than profound psychospiritual transformation, and the same can surely be said about yoga. If this weren’t true, meditation and yoga would not be so darn popular.

To say that there are and have been some violent Buddhists is not much different from saying that there are and have been some violent people. But one could make the argument that Buddhism is less violent overall than other religions, and if indeed this were true, it would surely be due to its emphasis on universal compassion. Is this aspect of practice taught to American soldiers? I seriously doubt it. This is one of the dangers of appropriating and secularizing a religious technology: it can be used for many purposes quite different from those originally intended, just like a pen can be used to write a soul-stirring poem or to poke you in the eye.

As with any spiritual practice, the proof is in the pudding. If it’s not making you kinder, more patient, more generous, more loving, more free, and so on, you’re either not going deep enough or you’re doing it for ego-related reasons (or both). One of the best examples is the Dalai Lama himself, who has never said an unkind word about the Chinese despite the occupation, religious persecution, murder, and torture inflicted upon the Tibetan population. Having met the DL a few times, I do feel that he is a highly realized being, and a beautiful human as well. So I’m inclined to cut the guy some slack.

The dalai lama is adamant that spiritual practice, including meditation, is not a substitute for ethics. In addition, there will be no violence free human future without the cultivation of presence, and meditation is the fastest way there that i know of. Contemplative practice for young people is certainly a part of that project.

I have been thinking a lot about this issue of contemplation in a world of action for some time now. Justice is more or less automatic in the East- even those who may reject a literalistic notion of karma downplay the efficacy of large scale movements for social justice, and focus more on individual transformation. In the authentic Western lineages, however, justic must be “carved out,” in the words of Rabbi Herschel. The Biblical tradition is about the downward mobility of God, plain and simple-in fact, I think this insight is the West’s greatest contribution to human spirituality. But prophetic religion has a long shadow- the ability to move mountains and declare “thus saith the lord”, in it’s shadow form, has resulted in theocracies and violence of various kinds since its inception. Just look how quickly Jesus’ spiritual energy was scuttled, for instance.

It is here that contemplative practice becomes absolutely indispensable to prophetic religion- it is a guard against excesses of the worst kind and helps us keep a wide angle vision, in addition to its other bemefits. Prophetic religion is about destruction as much as it is about anything- we are incarnations of divinity in its destructive form- destroying unjust social structures is absolutely inevitable, and this can quickly escalate into violence.

We for whom the prophetic is nonnegotiable, at the very center of our religious vision, must find a way to continue to articulate the need for this peculiar religious vision, peculiar in the grand scheme of humanity’s religious history, while working with others who focus more on the transformation of individual consciousness. Both are certainly needed.

I’m glad for the comments of Frank and Darrin: they bring my problem with this piece into focus. Although I agree that the simplistic-ness of the DL quote can quite easily distract us from the systemic and socio-political roots of violence, claiming that meditation is politically neutral without specifying what amongst the myriad of approaches one is talking about creates a straw baby and throws it out with the bath water. You did us the service of deconstructing “violence” in the open graphs: truly we don’t agree on what it is. But you can’t do that without also picking apart what we mean when we say “meditation”. Deconstructing only half of the DL’s statement isn’t playing fair.

As far as I can tell, there are two general divisions of meditation: conscious/analytical reorientation of the content of inner experience via prayer, visualization, or attention on a particular object to absorb its qualities. This is akin to CBT, really. It can definitely be described as politically neutral, insofar as it can be used for anything. But the other division — let’s call it mindfulness — at least tries to abandon analysis and meaning and reactivity to focus on the root sensations of life. MBSR side isn’t about cognitive content, but about where attention lies. Attention to autonomic function generally leads to an experience of internal and external interdependence. Hence, an ethics arises out of simple ecology. The lesson of mindfulness to sensation is “I’m alive, I’m changing, I have pain, I have joy.” You open your eyes from this, and you know you’re not alone. The paradox is: withdrawing from cognition and metacognition into raw perceptual awareness creates a reality-based groundwork for empathy.

But here’s the real problem: I say meditation leads to empathy, and asshole WWII zen monk says meditation leads to conquest. We’re both self-reporting internal activities, using a plastic term. Until the writer actually asks: “What are you doing when you say you’re meditating”, we don’t really know what we’re talking about. Further than that: until we can test the meditator to assess whether they’re doing what they say they’re doing, we know even less. If somebody claimed to be practicing a scientific discipline but couldn’t or wouldn’t produce any data, we would simply say they were bullshitting. So Darrin’s folksy “proof is in the pudding” hits home here. I think we have to results-test the practices we critique.

I’m glad for the comments of Frank and Darrin: they bring my problem with this piece into focus. Although I agree that the simplistic-ness of the DL quote can quite easily distract us from the systemic and socio-political roots of violence, claiming that meditation is politically neutral without specifying what amongst the myriad of approaches one is talking about creates a straw baby and throws it out with the bath water. You did us the service of deconstructing “violence” in the open graphs: truly we don’t agree on what it is. But you can’t do that without also picking apart what we mean when we say “meditation”. Deconstructing only half of the DL’s statement isn’t playing fair.

As far as I can tell, there are two general divisions of meditation: conscious/analytical reorientation of the content of inner experience via prayer, visualization, or attention on a particular object to absorb its qualities. This is akin to CBT, really. It can definitely be described as politically neutral, insofar as it can be used for anything. But the other division — let’s call it mindfulness — at least tries to abandon analysis and meaning and reactivity to focus on the root sensations of life. MBSR side isn’t about cognitive content, but about where attention lies. Attention to autonomic function generally leads to an experience of internal and external interdependence. Hence, an ethics arises out of simple ecology. The lesson of mindfulness to sensation is “I’m alive, I’m changing, I have pain, I have joy.” You open your eyes from this, and you know you’re not alone. The paradox is: withdrawing from cognition and metacognition into raw perceptual awareness can create a reality-based groundwork for empathy.

But here’s the real problem: I say meditation leads to empathy, and asshole WWII zen monk says meditation leads to conquest. We’re both self-reporting internal activities, using a plastic term. Until the writer actually asks: “What are you doing when you say you’re meditating”, we don’t really know what we’re talking about. Further than that: until we can test the meditator to assess whether they’re doing what they say they’re doing, we know even less. If somebody claimed to be practicing a scientific discipline but couldn’t or wouldn’t produce any data, we would simply say they were bullshitting. So Darrin’s folksy “proof is in the pudding” hits home here. I think we have to results-test the practices we critique.

I think the general focus of this article, like his earlier one on Elkhart tolle, was on the failure to connect mysticism with the prophetic,, or contemplation with action. Just last night I was thinking about Wagner-loving Nazis. Was their love of Wagner wrong? No. The Eros it awakened in them could have been channeled into resistance and liberation, but it was not. I know this firsthand. I grew up in a Pentecostal tradition where there was legitimate spiritual experience, rooted in the shamanic, that truly did heal people in any number of ways. Back in the day, Pentecostalism was the most deeply anti-racist Christian tradition, having been formed by blacks and poor whites in California at the beginning of the century, and incorporating their blended energy in unified syle of worship. Despite the genuine spiritual longing awakened and thirst satiated, and local healing, the spiritual energy was killed, week after week, with TERRIBLE theology and teaching, that lead not into an awakened heart for the entire world, but the worst kind of parochialism and exclusive vision of divinity imaginable. Furthermore, the very real spiritual graces encountered in Pentecostal worship became justification for the Pentecostal paradigm of hate, just as Be describes in this article.

Perhaps unlike Be, I do not think these experiences are neutral- they bend towards the good and liberation, but only just as Rebbe Waskow and Dr. King have said. But they can be QUICKLY distorted and misused for evil. We must go the rest of the way – allowing all the forms of spiritual energy on tap for the greening of our common life, from the contemplative to the shamanic, to be unified in a swirling, gurgling, gushing river of living water such as John’s gospel refers to (or the cruze of oil in the Tanach) and not allow the great underground river of divinity to be dammed by inadequate religion or spirituality. We will be saved by the re-union of the mystic and the prophetic, the fullness of our humanity and divinity, or not at all.

When done right, meditation is truly a violent, spiritual war – war with the mind-created “I”, with illusion, with craving and aversion, with all that is false.

It is not all clouds and flowers (though it sometimes is). Many Western practitioners of meditation would prefer that it align with a vague, New Age positive thinking approach to life, and with their idealized visions of an exotic, magical, mystical Eastern wisdom.

This is even more reason we need a Caring Society- because our internal work involves destruction and disintegration, which creates pain, which can be mishandled (the source of burnout). Where is the communal support for the individual’s spiritual journey? Does any current societal institution enhance rather than hamper it?

Thanks for this article and for bringing up some of these points. I agree that it’s very important to be clear about where we stand ethically. Traditionally this is the basic function of contemplating karma, which is often overlooked in modernized Buddhism (including the Buddhism of Japan, which was drastically reshaped, as you know, by modern imperialism.) I also think that, taken within the context of the Dalai Lama’s larger message, that he would probably also agree. He often restates the traditional Buddhist view that a wholesome ethical understanding is a prerequisite for right concentration — which is also a traditional and yogic view, although often overlooked in the west.

I also have an edit for you: In your section on ethical neutrality, you wrote: “Therefore, if we assume that there is in fact a divine foundation of reality, it’s extremely difficult to see how it wouldn’t be morally and politically neutral.” I think you meant to say “how it *would* be morally and politically neutral.”

This article hits at the root of something that has bothered me for a long, long time so thank you.

Several thoughts I had while reading it (and sorry for the long comment, but it brought up a lot for me)

First, it is troubling to me that we continue to look to religious leaders for answers to questions regarding evil and violence. It is the 21st century and it’s time we start looking to science to help us understand the mechanisms by which these things arise so we can develop effective strategies to reduce them. Sure, science can’t tell us why they occur in a metaphysical sense. But more and more it is elucidating how they come about. And often the strategies we’re led to by its findings are counterintuitive. They also may not be comfortable for us, but we must come to a willingness to address these matters realistically rather than based on wishful thinking.

I spent a lot of the last couple years studying and writing about ponerology, which is the scientific field devoted to investigating these questions from an objective, rather than theological or purely philosophical, perspective. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in these issues.

We would not ask religious leaders to explain to us how an infection develops. Nor should we be looking to them to explain why a person is driven to violence. This is something increasingly studied by neuroscientific and other research. I agree it is irresponsible for leaders like the Dalai Lama to put out statements about these topics when they apparently have not taken into account any of the basic science relevant to the issue. And if they are going to comment on the topic, it would be best if they would use their platform to encourage people to support ponerologic resesarch by those who actually have expertise in these matters. Instead of putting out fluffy statements like the one you mentioned, I’d love to see the Dalai Lama instead encouraging people to donate to institutions that are doing basic science research studying the criminal brain, for example, or investigating what types of parenting measures lead to higher levels of empathy or whether psychopaths are capable of empathy at all.

One of the things that I learned about in detail when studying ponerology, and covered at length when I wrote about it, are the specific ways that ideology can be hijacked by pathological people in their rise to or maintenance of power. ANY ideology can be hijacked, even ones that on their surface would seem incompatible with violence and power seeking. And here you detail well how that has happened repeatedly with Buddhism. It isn’t a statement about Buddhism itself, per se. I have read about “Engaged Buddhism” which specifically encourages political action and striving for justice. And I have heard some Buddhists mention the term “idiot compassion” to almost mock the idea that it is compassionate to be passive in the face of evil. So Buddhism doesn’t inherently have to accomodate to unjust power structures. But it can be manipulated to do so.

Even Marshall Rosenberg, who you mention, has an entire section in his Nonviolent Communication book, about the protective use of force, making clear that it is necessary to use when appropriate and explaining how to do so.

You said:

“But inner transformation doesn’t necessarily lead to social transformation, despite the popular conceptions to the contrary. In many cases the cultivation of presence and awareness is actually used to support violence.”

This is so well said and sums up a lot of what I struggle to communicate to people. It mirrors what Derrick Jensen harps on in his writing, where he often points out that lifestyle change and symbolic measures do not necessarily lead to actual social change.

I’ve thought a lot about why this idea that individual internal work will lead to social justice is so popular. I think it’s because, when we face the reality of how enormous the real power structures involved are, we feel small and relatively powerless ourselves. It’s an unpleasant feeling. And rather than begin to face that feeling and come to terms with it and create a strategy to connect with others and do the best we can, we often try to get rid of the unpleasant feeling directly by just prodding ourselves to believe that actually we don’t have to deal with those external structures. We tell ourselves we can focus on ourselves individually and that, through some kind of magic, the external structures will change accordingly. It’s an intoxicating belief. It not only saves us from that awful feeling of powerlessness, but it fills us with a feeling of extreme power.

And meanwhile those in the external systems who are doing damage can just smile as we have effectively removed ourselves from their list of concerns.

The quote by Yasutani’s would not hold up in any Buddhist school that I know of wether Mahayana or some other order. The Buddhist idea of violence, in my understanding, is relative to what is going on inside of you. The idea is to try and be less violent as time goes on with practice through meditation. Being mean to someone could be thought of as being violent to that person if it’s deep in your heart. Obviously as a society we need standards of what is violent enough to go to jail but as you know, everything is relative.

I sincerely doubt that the Dalai Lama intended for his statement to be taken so literally. The article does correctly highlight the human propensity for close-mindedness, which often leads to hypocrisy, bigotry, fundamentalism, and ultimately failed compassion. This holds true no matter what the religious/ spiritual teachings, practices, and rituals in question. However, the article takes a single statement, conflates it with examples of asinine behavior carried through in the name of religion, then wrongly asserts that the Dalai Lama, not human folly, is to blame.

“If you set out to meditate it will not be meditation.” – Krishnamurti

Mr. Schofield brings up interesting points, however I feel his understanding of Buddhism is not quite complete. He does not speak at all about the Buddhist precepts, which are the moral guidelines of behavior for Buddhists (which include not killing and not stealing), which come before meditation practice in the Theravada tradition, and are included as not separate from meditation practice in the Zen and Tibetan traditions (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts#Ten_Precepts). Perhaps if the Dalai Lama would have clarified the precepts as also necessary, in addition to meditation, for the possibility of eliminating violence, his statement would be less controversial. Also, any religion, group, sub-group, can and typically has the dark historical tendency to be used and abused for political power, profit and/or extreme nationalism. Buddhism is not exempt from this. I would have liked to see Mr. Schofield mention famous zen ancestors who challenged the status quo and promoted peace, such as: Nyogen Senzaki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyogen_Senzaki#America , Soen Nakagawa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soen_Nakagawa , Bassui: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassui_Tokusho, Hakuin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuin

Be Scofield begins his piece by quoting the Dali Lama (“If every 8 year old in the world is taught meditation, we will eliminate violence from the world within one generation.”) He then goes on to offer a criticism based on the premise that the Dali Lama is confused about the nature of meditation. I have personally received teaching from the Dali Lama on three occasions, listened to recording of other oral teachings, and read many of his books. The Dali Lama is not confused.
Any argument that rests on the notion that His Holiness is confused about meditation and its purpose is off to a shaky start. I recommend that readers study the Dali Lama’s book Stages of Meditation , based on the root text by Kamalashila, if they wish to understand what he meant when he suggested teaching meditation to 8-year-olds. In Tibetan Buddhism, as in all Mahayana schools, Dharma practices (which include meditation) is by definition motivated by the sincere desire to benefit all living beings. It cannot be ethically neutral.
A useful exercise would be follow the advise of the Dali Lama on how to do meditation and then take the examples Be gives as ethical dilemmas (…spray painting over a sexist billboard, using violence to defend against rape, eating meat, the prison industrial complex, throwing tear gas canisters back towards the police who fired them, the capitalist system, racial microagressions, stealing food to support oneself…etc.). Reflect upon them from the perspective of benefiting all beings to see what sort of clarity will come to you.

The dalai lama is wonderful, but his differences with prophetic religion remain. IN one of his many good books, for example, he cites karma as justification for wealth inequality. He says that he is not worried about it, because in his view, if someone is wealthy, it is because of their karma, and vice versa (an unwealthy individual). Though he is a fan of Marx, Most of the Economic solutions I have heard him suggest would leave the basic structure of western capitalism untouched significantly. He downplays social activism in his own society, saying it is not going to accomplish anything. He adopts a fundamentalist approach to his sacred texts in regards to LGBT equality. Since his ascension to Dalai Lama, he has been the sun around which his society has orbited. All of this is incompatible with a society of love, justice, and equality that we seek.

Metaphor enlightens while literalism becomes a living death. The Dalai Lama’s statement ” if every 8 year old in the world…” will not literally be so anytime soon! But this article and discussion shows what a catalyst those words are as they point to something profound within us and between us, as meditation and action converge at this tipping point.

Dear Be Scofield,
Thank you for your article. In my humble opinion (as opinions are after all what this wordly place is about), I believe that the Dalai Lama’s statement had a particular definition of meditation in mind, one that encompasses his beflief system. While you are right, and it is very sad to see what has happened in the past, Buddhists who have been happy to fight and kill are like Christians who reject homosexuals because “the bible says so” or Muslims who kill Americans because they believe they will be rewarded by Allah. It’s all a personal and subjective misinterpretation of the teachings passed on for generations. After hearing His Holiness speak recently one thing I took from him is that God and compassion are one and the same, and compassion and kindness are meant to be granted to everyone without bias, to share in God’s divinity. It does not matter if you are Buddhist or of any other religion. Killing and Buddhism are mutually exclusive according to the teachings I have received. It’s all a matter on how the teachings are related, and the interpretation of the person receiving them, of course both of these are affected by many factors including culture and environment. That’s kind of the point of the Eightfold Path (right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration) is to help guide us in the “right” direction. But again, in this human experience, everything is subjective. Even the Eightfold Path can be misinterpreted and misused by those with ill intention if they believe their intention is right. It’s a loophole. In any case I think the Dalai Lama’s statement is true to the extent that children have inherent goodness and receive teachings from inherently good teachers with compassion and kindness in mind. Otherwise, you are right, it will not work.
~ Namaste ~

Well, in reality, Buddhism does offer extraordinary benefits. And the fact is, of all the people in this world, Buddhists are the only people that never cause problems for humanity. We are not sure about what exactly happened many years ago. Nonetheless, here in the modern era, do you ever, even occasionally, hear of Buddhists as trouble-makers?